Author: TSA Press

Senior
Pentagon
Reporter
Ashley
Roque
joins
host
Aaron
Mehta
to
discuss
the
latest
developments
out
of
Iran,
including
a
reported
reduction
in
retaliatory
strikes
from
Iran.

Then,
Contributing
Editor
Sydney
Freedberg
joins
The
Weekly
Break
Out
to
detail
how
the
Pentagon’s
battle
against
Anthropic
continues
to
evolve.

*
Ed
Martin
formally
charged
by
D.C.
disciplinary
authorities.
In
case
you
were
wondering

why
the
DOJ
is
so
adamant
about
banning
local
licensing
authorities
from
investigating
ethical
breaches.
[CNN]

*
Journalists
from
Law360
join
sibling
publication
writers
in
protesting
parent
company
RELX
signing
a
LexisNexis
deal
with
ICE.
Reuters
journalists
also
asked
about
the
various
deals
Thomson
Reuters
has
with
Homeland
Security.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Berkeley
now
has
a
month-long
1L
course
on
dealing
with
early
recruiting.
Hey,
offer
it
for
the
whole
year!
Just
move
Torts
and
Contracts
to
2L…
it’s
not
like
the
firms
care
about
those
grades
anyway.
[The
Recorder]

*
Judiciary
plans
to
make
electronic
filing
and
records
system
upgrades
a
priority

after
hacking
incident.
With
this
decision
to
fast-track
an
overhaul
we
could
be
looking
at
a
truly
modern
PACER
in…
I
don’t
know…
10
years
or
so.
[Reuters]

*
Judiciary
sit
down
continued
long-running
discussion
of
lower
court
judges
needing
more
security
and
the
Chief
Justice…
not
really
doing
anything
about
it.
[Law360]

*
NASDAQ
changing
its
rules
to
bring
on
SpaceX,
and
historically,
great
things
happen
when
the
financial
industry
throws
out
all
its
standards
to
appease
billionaires!
[CNBC]

*
Lawyer
convicted
of
stalking
legal
blogger
sentenced
to
community
service
and
plans
to
appeal.
[Legal
Cheek]

Gumisai
Nenzou,
marketing
manager
for
the
Minerals
Marketing
Corporation
of
Zimbabwe
(MMCZ),
says
the
“decaying
state”
of
the
national
rail
system
has
created
a
bottleneck
for
the
mining
industry.
He
blames
this
on
“decades
of
neglected
tracks
and
ageing
equipment”.

He
says
the
impact
is
most
severe
for
bulk
commodities
such
as
coal,
chrome
and
lithium,
which
require
large
transport
volumes
to
remain
profitable.
“When
these
goods
are
hauled
by
truck
to
ports
like
Beira
in
Mozambique,
the
cost
of
fuel
and
maintenance
pushes
up
the
final
price.”
He
says
this
makes
Zimbabwean
exports
less
competitive
compared
with
countries
that
have
functioning
rail
networks.

Despite
these
issues,
mineral
sales
hit
4.8
million
tons
in
2025,
earning
$3.4bn
—
up
61%
in
volume
and
14%
in
value
from
2024.
Platinum
group
metals
(PGM)
matte
sales
jumped
71%
to
$1.5bn
(37,194t
exported),
and
lithium
brought
in
$571.6m.
Growth
came
from
higher
PGM
prices
and
better
processing,
though
diamonds
and
coke
lagged.

Experts
are
urging
greater
focus
on
processing
minerals
locally
(like
Zimbabwe’s
raw
lithium
ban
since
2022)
to
create
jobs
and
revenue.
Government
officials
promote
mining
at
events
such
as
February’s
Mining
Indaba
in
Cape
Town,
but
critics
say
policies
lack
strength;
there
is
no
clear
“critical
minerals”
list
or
supply
chain
plans
to
rival
the
US
or
EU.
A
presidential
aide
has
called
current
efforts
“feeble”
and
inconsistent.

Reuters
reported
last
year
that
Zimbabwe’s
platinum
miners
are
owed
millions
of
dollars
in
unpaid
export
income
under
the
government’s
foreign
currency
retention
rules.
The
Chamber
of
Mines
Zimbabwe
said
this
affects
operations
in
a
sector
still
recovering
from
a
price
collapse.
The
report
said
the
country
requires
all
exporters
to
retain
70%
of
their
foreign
currency
earnings,
with
the
remainder
converted
to
local
currency.

MMCZ
GM
Nomusa
Jane
Moyo
says
recent
growth
has
been
driven
by
firmer
prices
for
PGMs
and
improved
export
processing
efficiencies.

“Value
growth,
however,
was
partly
constrained
by
lower
rough
diamond
sales
volumes,
depressed
diamond
prices
and
heightened
competition
in
the
coke
market,
which
required
strategic
price
adjustments
to
maintain
market
share,”
she
says.

The
MMCZ
says
volumes
were
33%
above
target,
while
revenue
exceeded
projections
by
10%.
It
is
targeting
$3.5bn
in
mineral
sales
for
this
financial
year.

Zimbabwe
is
positioning
itself
as
a
mining
destination.
At
the
Mining
Indaba
conference,
officials
promoted
investment
opportunities
in
the
sector.
Farai
Maguwu,
executive
director
of
the
Centre
for
Natural
Resource
Governance,
says
while
the
country
is
actively
courting
investors,
more
emphasis
needs
to
be
placed
on
value
addition
and
local
participation.

He
says
the
Zimbabwe
Investment
&
Development
Agency
(Zida)
needs
to
intensify
efforts
to
attract
investors
who
are
prepared
to
invest
in
beneficiation.
“Zida
must
market
the
country
for
investors
to
come
and
do
value
addition,”
he
says,
urging
the
government
to
empower
local
players
to
participate
meaningfully
in
the
value
chain.

“We
need
the
setting
up
of
companies
that
process
all
these
minerals,”
he
says.
Zimbabwe
was
the
first
African
country
to
ban
raw
lithium
exports
in
2022,
a
move
partly
inspired
by
Indonesia,
amid
rising
Chinese
investment
in
lithium
mining
and
processing.

George
Charamba,
deputy
secretary
in
the
office
of
the
president,
says
Zimbabwe
has
made
only
“feeble
attempts”
to
control
its
minerals.
“It
has
banned
the
exportation
of
raw
minerals;
it
has
also
started
demanding
royalties
in
minerals
as
opposed
to
cash.
Yet
these
are
…
weak
concessions,”
he
wrote
in
The
Herald,
a
newspaper.

Post
published
in:

Business

Jackson
And
Kavanaugh
Go
Head
To
Head
On
The
Shadow
Docket:
Special
treatment
or
“short
memories”?
Read
and
find
out!
Rutgers
Law
Sued
Over
Firing
Former
Dean:
Alleging
a
discriminatory
firing,
he
wants
his
job
back
and
punitive
damages.
Is
Two
Too
Little?:
Only
two
federal
law
clerks
filed
complaints
under
the
Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Act.
Progress
or
broken
process?
Billion-Dollar
Lessons
From
Medical
Settlements:
Here
are
some
takeaways
from
the
Moderna
v.
Arbutus
battle.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
Biglaw
firm
is
representing
Anthropic
PBC
in
its
suit
against
the
Defense
Department
over
the
designation
of
the
AI
giant
as
a
supply
chain
risk?

Hint:
The
firm
is
famously
comfortable
with
high-stakes
disputes
with
the
Trump
administration. 

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

How
often
can
I
spend
years
watching
a
case
go
from
filing
to
settlement
when
I
am
not
an
attorney
of
record
for
one
of
the
parties?
It
happens,
usually
when
the
case
at
issue
is
one
of
high
value
and
interest
to
the
investment
community.
Yes,
I
continue
to
consult
for
investors
on
a
variety
of
ongoing
third-party
patent
cases
of
interest
to
them,
but
usually
the
interest
on
the
investor
side
tends
to
coalesce
around
certain
key
events,
such
as
a
Markman
hearing
or
trial.
One
major
exception
to
that
concentration
of
interest
around
litigation
inflection
points
—
rather
than
a
general
interest
for
the
lifespan
of
the
case
in
its
entirety
—
was
the
long-running
dispute
between
Arbutus
and
Moderna,
concerning
Arbutus’
patents
on
the
lipid
nanoparticle
technology
that
allows
for
delivery
of
mRNA-based
vaccines,
including
the
COVID-19
vaccine
known
as
Spikevax.
Throughout,
there
was
an
expectation
that
the
dispute
could
end
up
as
of
the
most
valuable
patent
assertions
of
all
time,
hence
the
constant
interest.

In
fact,
the
dispute
predated
the
pandemic,
with
Moderna’s
unsuccessful
attempts
to
invalidate
Arbutus’
patents
via
IPR
in
the
2018/2019
timeframe,
around
the
time
of
Moderna’s

blockbuster
IPO,
which
valued
the
company
at
over
$7.5
billion.
It
is
safe
to
assume
that
Moderna’s
investors
at
the
time
never
dreamed
that
the
company
would
end
up
selling
nearly
$20
billion
in
COVID-19
vaccines
in
2022
alone.
The
hullabaloo
around
the
IPO,
however,
was
more
than
enough
to
raise
investor
interest
in
the
Arbutus
patent
issue,
which
is
when
I
started
discussing
the
case
with
investor
clients.
In
other
words,
I
have
been
discussing
at
least
some
of
these
patents
for
nearly
half
their
lifespan.
And
I
am
going
to
miss
discussing
this
case
in
the
context
of
Moderna,
now
that
a

settlement
for
the
ages
has
been
reached.

For
those
unfamiliar,
a
quick
detour
to
explain
how
we
got
here,
before
I
turn
to
some
lessons
we
can
all
take
from
this
settlement.
After
the
federal
circuit
affirmed
the
denials
of
Moderna’s
IPRs,
speculation
arose
as
to
when
Arbutus
would
pull
the
trigger
on
a
district
court
patent
infringement
case.
The
answer
came
on
the
last
day
in
February
of
2022,
when
Arbutus
filed
against
Moderna
in
the
district
of
Delaware,
only
to
see
the
case
reassigned
to
a
visiting
judge
from
Philadelphia,
the
Hon.
Mitchell
S.
Goldberg.
Indicative
of
how
long
patent
cases
can
take
to
get
to
trial,
Goldberg
retired
from
the
bench
in
2025,
taking
a

position
as
senior
counsel
in
Blank
Rome’s
litigation
group.
Prior
to
leaving
the
bench,
trial
in
the
dispute
had
been
moved
from
late
September
2025
to
March
9,
2026.
And
when
Goldberg’s
replacement,
the
EDPA’s
Hon.
Joshua
D.
Wolson
took
over
the
case
in
July
2025,
the
schedule
for
summary
judgment
and
other
pretrial
motions
had
already
been
set.
To
his
credit,
Wolson
hewed
closely
to
that
pretrial
schedule,
refusing
to
entertain
a
shift
in
the
trial
date
and
doing
everything
in
his
power
to
get
the
case
ready
for
trial.

One
key
set
of
developments
on
that
front
was
the
court’s
decisions
on
various
pending
summary
judgment
motions
over
the
course
of
this
February.
Perhaps
most
important
for
Moderna’s
purposes
was
the
court’s
handling
of
Moderna’s
attempt
to
shift
the
damages
burden
from
itself
to
the
U.S.
government,
based
on
28
U.S.C.
§1498. The
court’s
rejection
of
that
attempt
was
mitigated
somewhat
by
a
grant
of
summary
judgment
in
Moderna’s
favor
on
Arbutus’
doctrine
of
equivalents
positions
in
that
same
decision.
But
in
the
series
of
decisions
that
followed,
things
got
progressively
worse
for
Moderna
heading
into
trial.
First,
the
court
gutted
Moderna’s
prior
art-based
invalidity
defenses
on
summary
judgment,
finding
that
IPR
estoppel
applied
to
Moderna’s
obviousness
defenses
and
that
Moderna’s
derivation
defense
failed
as
a
matter
of
law.
Then,
Wolson
granted
Arbutus’
motion
to
exclude
Moderna’s
damages
expert’s
opinions
on
a
reasonable
royalty
and
noninfringing
alternatives.
At
the
same
time,
the
court
reserved
judgment
on
Moderna’s
motion
to
exclude
Arbutus’
damages
expert’s
testimony,
whereby
she
intended
to
argue
to
the
jury
that
Moderna
would
have
agreed
to
a
royalty
of
$4
billion
to
$5
billion-plus
for
the
patented
technology.
Those
setbacks,
perhaps
coupled
with
jury
research
that
may
have
suggested
that
a
huge
verdict
against
Moderna
was
possible,
clearly
contributed
to
the
mammoth
courthouse
steps
settlement
announced
last
week.

For
its
part,
the
settlement
is
a
creative
one,
with
a
large
upfront
—
and
guaranteed
—
payment
from
Moderna
to
Arbutus
for
$950
million
payable
in
July
of
this
year.
That
alone
would
make
this
one
of
the
more
successful
pharma
royalty
patent
assertions
of
all
time,
but
there
is
more,
namely
that
pending
the
results
of
Moderna’s
appeal
of
the
§1498
issue,
Moderna
may
pay
up
to
$1.3
billion
more,
for
a
total
potential
payout
of
$2.25
billion.
While
that
almost-unprecedented
amount
for
a
patent
settlement
may
be
striking,
early
indications
are
that
Moderna
made
the
right
call.
Moderna’s
stock
jumped
over
10%
on
the
day
after
the
settlement
was
announced,
adding
billions
to
the
company’s
market
cap.
Perhaps
more
importantly,
the
bankruptcy
threat
presented
to
Moderna
from
a
potential
megaverdict
was
avoided,
giving
the
company
a
lifeline
to
try
to
replicate
past
success
in
an
uncertain
post-COVID
future.

In
my
view,
the
court’s
deft
handling
of
the
pretrial
period
contributed
mightily
to
seeing
this
long-running
and
high-value
dispute
get
to
resolution
before
trial.
For
one,
keeping
the
pressure
of
the
trial
date
on
the
parties
is
a
long-known
tactic
for
driving
settlement
—
one
employed
in
courts
with
heavy
patent
dockets,
(e.g.,
EDTX),
to
great
effect.
Keeping
that
threat
of
trial
alive,
however,
also
required
the
court
to
diligently
address
the
pending
pretrial
motions,
which
it
did
to
its
credit.
And
the
coup-de-grace
of
holding
off
on
perhaps
the
most
important
pretrial
motion
outside
of
the
§1498
issue
was
also
a
Wolson
masterstroke,
by
keeping
the
question
alive
for
both
sides
as
to
what
Arbutus’
damages
expert
would
be
able
to
ask
for
at
trial.
That
mutual
risk
surely
helped
drive
the
settlement
into
a
range
where
both
sides
felt
some
pain,
while
also
being
free
to
pursue
their
other
endeavors
from
a
position
of
greater
strength. 

For
Moderna,
that
translates
into
its
ongoing
efforts
to
replicate
the
commercial
success
of
its
COVID-19
vaccine.
For
Arbutus,
focus
shifts
to
its
ongoing
case
pending
in
New
Jersey
against
Pfizer,
where
it
will
now
hope
to
replicate
its
patent
assertion
victory
against
Moderna
in
the
form
of
another
megabucks
settlement
or
even
a
trial
win.
And
for
those
of
us
who
have
been
following
this
dispute
for
years,
the
lessons
learned
along
the
way
will
serve
us
in
good
stead
when
we
are
called
upon
to
comment
on
other
cases,
whether
as
counsel
for
the
parties
or
as
a
consultant
to
interested
investors.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.

---

Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.

For
years,
legal
leaders
fought
for
a
seat
at
the
table.

In
many
organizations,
they
got
it.
Legal
is
invited
earlier.
Executives
ask
for
legal’s
perspective
before
decisions
are
finalized.
The
department
is
treated
as
a
strategic
partner
instead
of
a
last-minute
checkpoint.

That
progress
matters.
But
it
also
exposed
a
different
problem:
Being
in
the
room
doesn’t
fix
how
the
work
actually
gets
done.

And
right
now,
that
gap
is
becoming
harder
to
ignore.

AI
Is
Raising
the
Stakes

Generative
AI
is
accelerating
how
quickly
legal
work
can
be
produced.
Tasks
that
used
to
take
hours
now
take
minutes.
Drafts
appear
instantly.
Research
happens
faster.
Analysis
can
scale.

When
execution
speeds
up
like
that,
the
bottleneck
moves
somewhere
else.

It
moves
to
the
operating
model
around
the
work.

Business
teams
aren’t
just
asking
legal
for
an
opinion
anymore.
They
want
advice
that
is
consistent
and
explainable.
They
want
to
know
why
something
changed,
who
approved
it,
and
whether
the
answer
will
be
the
same
next
time.

Those
expectations
expose
something
many
legal
departments
have
quietly
struggled
with
for
years:
operational
consistency.

Where
Things
Start
to
Break

Most
legal
teams
can
handle
complexity.
The
lawyers
are
capable.
The
judgment
is
there.

But
when
volume
increases
—
or
when
technology
speeds
everything
up—cracks
appear
in
how
the
department
runs.

Questions
that
used
to
stay
invisible
suddenly
matter:

•
Why
did
Legal
recommend
this?
•
Do
they
really
understand
my
business?
•
What
assumptions
did
they
use?
•
Which
version
of
the
process
applies?
•
Why
did
costs
spike
this
quarter?

Those
aren’t
technology
questions.
They’re
operational
questions.

And
they’re
the
ones
executives
start
asking
the
moment
AI
becomes
part
of
the
workflow.

The
Teams
That
Hold
Up

In
our
work
with
legal
departments,
the
teams
that
perform
well
under
pressure
tend
to
have
a
few
fundamentals
in
place.

First,
scope
and
assumptions
are
explicit.

If
the
scope
of
the
work
is
fuzzy,
surprises
become
inevitable.
When
expectations
are
clear
at
the
outset,
changes
can
be
explained
instead
of
defended.

Second,
ownership
is
obvious.

When
no
one
clearly
owns
a
decision,
work
slows
down
or
gets
duplicated.
Strong
teams
make
it
easy
to
see
who
is
responsible
and
when
something
needs
escalation.

Third,
standards
are
repeatable.

Quality
cannot
depend
on
who
happens
to
pick
up
the
matter.
Clear
review
standards,
playbooks,
and
expectations
for
outside
counsel
create
consistency
across
the
team.

Finally,
metrics
explain
outcomes,
not
just
activity.

“We
handled
more
matters”
isn’t
an
explanation.
Leadership
wants
to
know
what
changed,
why
costs
moved,
and
how
legal’s
work
affected
the
business.

None
of
this
is
glamorous
work.

But
it’s
what
makes
the
department
dependable.

Influence
Isn’t
the
Same
as
Control

The
“seat
at
the
table”
narrative
treated
influence
as
the
finish
line.

In
reality,
it
was
only
the
starting
point.

You
can
attend
every
leadership
meeting
and
still
have
chaotic
intake.

You
can
be
consulted
on
every
strategic
decision
and
still
struggle
to
explain
spend.

You
can
adopt
new
tools
and
still
produce
inconsistent
results.

You
can
be
respected
in
the
organization
but
still
have
a
difficult
time
expressing
the
value
that
Legal
brings
to
the
table.

Influence
gets
legal
into
the
conversation.
Operational
discipline
determines
whether
the
department
can
deliver
once
it’s
there.

What
AI
Is
Really
Exposing

AI
isn’t
creating
a
new
challenge
for
legal
departments.
It’s
revealing
an
old
one.

When
the
pace
of
work
increases,
inconsistency
becomes
visible.
When
business
teams
rely
on
outputs
produced
by
new
technology,
they
start
asking
questions
about
how
those
outputs
are
governed.

The
departments
that
succeed
won’t
necessarily
be
the
ones
with
the
most
technology.

They’ll
be
the
ones
who
can
run
their
work
predictably,
explain
their
results
clearly,
and
adapt
without
reinventing
the
process
every
time.

A
seat
at
the
table
gets
legal
into
the
room,
but
operational
clarity
is
what
keeps
it
there.

---

Stephanie
Corey is
the
co-founder
and
CEO
of
UpLevel
Ops.
She
also
serves
as
the
Global
Chair
of LINK
x
L
Suite
—
a
premier
community
of
General
Counsel
and
Legal
Operations
leaders
united
to
transform
the
legal
industry
through
collaboration,
innovation,
and
strategic
insight. Stephanie co-founded LINK
(Legal
Innovators
Network),
a
legal
ops
organization
exclusively
for
experienced
in-house
professionals,
and
previously
founded
the Corporate
Legal
Operations
Consortium
(CLOC),
where
she
served
as
an
executive
board
member.
She
is
a
recognized
leader
in
legal
operations
and
a
frequent
advisor
to
corporate
legal
departments
on
scaling
operational
excellence. Please
feel
free
to
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn. 

Just
two
federal
law
clerks

filed
complaints
under
the

Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Act
(JCDA)
in
2025,
according
to
the
judiciary’s

recently
released
2025

statistics.

Not
because
judges
don’t
mistreat
their
clerks
but
because
the

complaint
process
is

broken.
Consider
this:
according
to
the
judiciary’s

own
2023
workplace
conduct
survey,
106
clerks

described
actionable
mistreatment
that
year.
So,
a
functional
system
would
yield
nearly
106
complaints:
yet

that
year,
there
were


just
three
complaints.
Clerks
rarely
file,
given
the

enormous
headwinds
against
reporting:
they’re


not
legally
protected
against
retaliation
for
doing
so. 

Judges
have
life
tenure
and
cannot
be
fired:
so,
the
JCDA
delineates
a
process
that,
in
the
most
serious
circumstances,
could
lead
to
congressional
impeachment
and
removal
from
office.
It’s
the

only
way
to
discipline
judges,
since
they’re

exempt
from
the
anti-discrimination
laws
they
interpret
and
enjoy


legal
immunity
for
harassing
people.
Anyone
can
file
a
complaint

alleging
“conduct
prejudicial
to
the
effective
and
expeditious
administration
of
the
business
of
the
courts”
—
basically,
that
a
judge
has
committed

misconduct
or
has
a

disability
that
precludes
them
from
effectively
discharging
their
duties. 

Since
the
judiciary
insists
it
can
“self-police”
and
runs
an
“exemplary”
workplace,
you’d
think
complaints
would
be
encouraged
and
taken
seriously.
In
fact,
judiciary
officials
spend
most
of
their
time

dissuading
clerks
from
filing
complaints
—
heavily
incentivized
to

sweep
misconduct
under
the
rug
and

shield
abusive
judges
from
accountability.

Most
misconduct
isn’t
formally
reported
—
it’s
shared
informally
with
an

employee
dispute
resolution
(EDR)
coordinator,

director
of
workplace
relations
(DWR),
or
chief
judge
—
who
often


discourage
clerks
from
filing
complaints.
Or,
clerks
believe
they

have
reported.
One
clerk
told
me
recently,
“I
spoke
with
the
DWR:
I
thought
I

did
report
and
they’d
take
care
of
it.”
No.
Disturbingly,
judiciary
officials
are
not
required
to
act
or
even
to
disclose
troubling
information:
they’re
sitting
on

massive
evidence
of
misconduct.
For
example,
the
Second
Circuit
DWR

tasked
with
assisting
Judge
Sarah
Merriam’s
clerks
actually

withheld
information.
If
and
when
congressional
Democrats
take
the
majority
in
2027,
the
House
Judiciary
Committee
should
subpoena
all
notes
and
records
related
to
these
clerk
conversations,
which
would
reveal
a
treasure
trove
of
actionable
information.
Then,
Congress
and
the
courts
should
take
investigatory
and
disciplinary
action.

In
2025,
LAP
assisted
clerks
with
JCDA
complaints
against
Maryland
judge

Lydia
Kay
Griggsby
and
former
Minnesota
bankruptcy
judge

Kesha
Tanabe,
because
sunlight
is
the
best
disinfectant,
and
public
accountability
not
only
warns
prospective
clerks,
but
also
deters
misconduct.
Disturbingly,
the
Tanabe
complaint
was

withdrawn
by
the
clerk

under
pressure
from
the
Eighth
Circuit,
after
officials
told
him
the
judge
“was
resigning
anyway.”
That
incident
precipitated
introduction
of
the

TRUST
Act,

which
would
revise
the
JCDA
so
investigations
against
judges
can
continue
after
they
step
down
to
evade
accountability.
Unsurprisingly,
that
bill
stalled
in
Congress.
Former
judge

Mark
Wolf
pulled
the

same
stunt
late
last
year:
there
would
be
a
renewed
push
for
legislation
in
different
times. 

Unfortunately,
the
complaint
process
relies
on
subordinates
to
blow
the
whistle
on
powerful
superiors,
which
they
rarely
do,
since
they’re
not
protected
against
retaliation.
Clerks
perceive
the
risks
of
career
damage
and
reputational
harm
as
not
worth
the
potential
benefits,
given
how
few
judges
are
disciplined.
In
fact,
I
think

the
risk
is
overblown,
and
clerks
are
better
able
to
protect
against
retaliation
if
they
have
a
documented
complaint
than
if
they
have
no
evidence
except
their
word
against
the
judge’s.
But
it’s
still
an
uphill
battle
to
convince
clerks
to
report,
given
the
challenges
of
navigating
the
byzantine
complaint
process,
typically

without
legal
counsel.  

Complaint
statistics
are
a
terrible
metric
of
judicial
misconduct,
given
how
few
clerks
report.
The
judiciary’s

2023
workplace
conduct
survey
is
a
better
one.
While
quantifying
the
scope
of
the
problem
is
the
first
step
toward
crafting
effective
solutions,

there’s
been
no
next
step—from
the
courts
or
from
Congress.
For
example,
the
judiciary
has
not
investigated
the

106
aforementioned
judges’
misconduct.
They
should.
Nor
have
they
conducted
another
workplace
survey
since
2023:
they
took
nearly
two
years
after
collecting
data
to
publicly
disclose
it,
during
which
there
was
significant
judge
and
clerk
turnover.
The

Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA),
for
which
I
provided

testimony
four
years
ago
this
month,
would
require
the
judiciary
to
conduct
an

annual
workplace
survey
and
publicly
disclose
the
results,
as
well
as
outcomes
of
both
JCDA
and

internal
EDR
complaints.

Importantly,
the
judiciary
tries
to
funnel
clerks

away
from
JCDA
complaints
and
to
a

second
reporting
process,
EDR,
because
there’s
no
accountability
for
judges
and
the
judiciary

is
not
required
to
release
disciplinary
orders
disclosing
the
misconduct,
eliminating
even
the
appearance
of
transparency.

EDR
is

not
popular:

only
20
percent
of
employees
who
participated
in
EDR
were
satisfied
with
the
process
in
2023.
And
while
the
judiciary
misleadingly
frames
it
as
an
“alternative”
to
Title
VII,
it’s
not:
monetary
remedies
—

the
cornerstone
of
Title
VII
—

are
not
available
to
judiciary
employees
who
endured
serious
career
and
reputational
harm.
The
only
“remedy”
is
reassignment:
that
does

not
repair
clerks’
careers.
Nor
does
reassigning
clerks
prevent
judges
from
continuing
to
mistreat
employees:
like
with
Judges

Griggsby
and

Merriam,
simply
reassigning
clerks
without
disciplining
and
retraining
abusive
judges
is
a

Band-aid
over
a
bullet
hole
that
does
not
solve
the
problem,
leaves
future
clerks
vulnerable
to
mistreatment,
and
may
even
embolden
judges
to
treat
clerks
worse. 

What’s
the
point
of
judicial
discipline?
Isn’t
it
better
for
abusive
judges
to
step
down
so
they
can’t
mistreat
clerks?
Well,
they

can
mistreat
subordinates
in
their
next
jobs,
since
most
aren’t

disbarred.
And
if
they’re
not
disciplined
and
retrained,
they’ll
continue
mistreating
subordinates.
Judges
who
resigned
amid
misconduct
investigations,
including

Wolf
and

Tanabe,
went
to
law
firms
and
could
subject
vulnerable
subordinates
to
abuse
with
no
way
for
them
to
avoid
it. 

Discipline
deters
bad
behavior.
It’s
why
we
have
laws
and
rules:
many
lawyers’
jobs
are
literally
to
interpret
the
ones
that
apply

to
everyone
but
judges.
When
judges
face
real
consequences
for
abusing
their
power
—
like
a

public
reprimand
that
tarnishes
their
reputation,
a

suspension,
or
perhaps
even

impeachment
and
removal
from
office
—
they’re
less
likely
to
misbehave.
Yet
judges
face
no
disincentive
to
mistreat
clerks,
given
how
rarely
they’re
disciplined. 

Many
are
rightfully
skeptical
of
government’s
ability
to
ethically
serve
the
public.
But
while
much
ink
is
spilled
discussing
public
corruption
—

congressional
stock
trading
based
on
insider
information;
wealthy
individuals

purchasing
pardons;
and
those
with
influence

currying
favor
with
the
White
House
and
government
officials
—
the
courts
get
a
free
pass
for


judicial
corruption.
Judges
interpret
our
laws
—
making
decisions
every
day
affecting
litigants’
lives,
livelihoods,
and
liberty
—
while

not
subject
to
those
same
laws.
They
commit
misconduct

behind
the
bench,
while
ruling
on
litigants’
misconduct
in
front
of
the
bench. 

Frankly,
the
public
should
not
have

any
confidence
in
the
judiciary
as
a
fair
and
neutral
arbiter
of
disputes,
given
the
misconduct
judges
get
away
with.
The
federal
judiciary
is

perpetrating
a
fraud
upon
the
public:
concealing
misconduct,

obfuscating
about
the
scope
of
the
problem,
and

flouting
congressional
authority.
Judicial
corruption
is
no
different
from
other
public
corruption:
the
courts
are
just
better
at
hiding
it
by
controlling
the
levers
of
power,
chilling
law
clerk
complaints,
and
stymying
Congress
from
asking
questions.
These
disturbing
2025

complaint
statistics,
released
days
after

three
back-to-back

reported
instances
of
judicial
misconduct
in

just
six
weeks,
are
just
the
latest
in
a
long
line
of

red
flags.
Judges
cannot
remain

above
the
law:
it’s
time
for
meaningful
action. 

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.